The current state of Sexual Orientation Education in our Schools

The idea that schools might address sexual orientation in schools has come as a surprise to many parents. Letters to the editor have suggested that this was part of a gay agenda, and an attempt to introduce and promote ideas in a school culture that says nothing about sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, our children are already getting an education about sexual orientation from their peers, and sometimes their teachers. They are learning that "gay" is a synonym for "stupid" ("that's so gay"). They are exposed to gay slurs, name calling and verbal and physical violence on the basis of sexual orientation and perceived sexual orientation. Too often, teachers do not respond to these actions.

Our children look to us to be examples. Students, whether heterosexual or LGBT, are disturbed by the extent of anti-gay language and bullying. They want the adults around them to do something, to call a halt, to make a stand, and to protect all students in the schools from being witnesses to or participants in these unacceptable practices.

The choice before us is not whether or not we talk about sexual orientation in the schools. The choice is how. There are gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered children in our schools. There are children with family members who are LGBT. There are straight kids who are subjected to bullying as if they were gay. Bystanders are also affected by the offense against human dignity. If we do nothing about bullying and name-calling, then we are telling our children that this is acceptable to us. If we do something about the bullying and name-calling, then we will also need to confront our own discomfort with differences.

Public Interest, Policy Development and the Taxpayer

I applaud the Burnaby School Board for taking steps to protect the rights of children and staff in our schools to be protected from anti-gay slurs and bullying. Passing Policy 5.45 has been difficult for the trustees, and required courage and conviction. There is continuing protest by a group calling themselves Parents Voice, who oppose the Policy. This protest has taken the form of procedural challenges and accusations of a hidden gay agenda. Spokespeople for the Parents Voice claim that "sex activists" are seeking access to children to convert them to homosexuality. Some have suggested that, if Policy 5.45 goes forward, that in less than a century all children will choose same-sex relationships and there will be no more children. Others argue that if schools teach children to respect homosexuals, that it will mean contradicting what parents teach their children in the home (presumably, that homosexuals should not be respected).

Yesterday, George Kovacic of the group called the Parents Voice filed a complaint regarding the freedom of information request he made in April, 2011. The complaint was triggered by receipt of a copy of an email message sent by Betty Choi. However, it reflects a larger frustration with the school board's response.

The FOI request requests a broad spectrum of information, some of which is already in the public domain and freely available on the web site. Much of it seems to be a fishing expedition, designed to find evidence of a conspiracy, a hidden gay agenda, within the process by which the policy was developed. Reading between the lines, the FOI request arose after an acrimonious discussion, and is being carried forth in an aggressive and mean-spirited way. The School Board has already provided 5 free hours of staff time and $100 of photocopying at the taxpayers' expense. While some members of the public may be interested, this is not the same thing as being in the public interest. It is far from clear what public interest these notes will serve.

The timeline and process for the development of Policy 5.45 are available on the school board web page. Evidence that bullying and anti-gay slurs are pervasive within the burnaby school district can be found in reports such as Not Yet Equal. A summary of inputs to the Board regarding Policy 5.45 can be found in this document.

Non-heterosexual people are part of our community, and have the right to a safe and respectful learning environment. Children also need to learn to treat non-heterosexuals in their social groups with respect.

In the end, for me, it comes down to the human rights of children who experience anti-gay slurs and bullying. It comes down to the climate of hatred, ridicule and disrespect for different others. Being around name-calling and slurs is not good for the victims, and it is also not good for the bystanders. Being gay, or not conforming to gender norms and being called gay, should not expose children to name-calling and ridicule. Some children are simply miserable. But this misery can be so great that some children have committed suicide as a result of the homophobic bullying in our schools. We have a problem, and the School Board has finally taken steps to address it.

Some parents will undoubtedly continue to teach their children that those who love and long for people of the same sex do so as a misguided, sinful or sick "lifestyle choice". They will teach their children that a first marriage between a man and a woman is superior to all other relationships.

Although I believe in tolerance and strive to understand diversity, there are limits. Religious freedoms should not prevent human rights protections.

Call for mutual compassion around Policy 5.45

To the editor:

Like many other letter writers, I am saddened by the polarity and name-calling in discussions about Policy 5.45. Religion, like sexual orientation, is a deeply personal thing, and threatening intolerance and a lack of acceptance of either encourages people to become closed, defensive and to lash out.

My own response to Policy 5.45 is based in my compassion for those who are affected by a climate of anti-gay slurs and bullying. It is also based in my strong belief that the human rights of minorities should be protected. When I think about homosexuality (and bisexuality and transgendered people) I think of people I know who are attracted to people of the same sex. There are many ordinary, even boring, people who are gay (I use gay collectively for LGBT – non-heterosexual folks). They lead normal lives, they contribute to their communities, and some of them raise children who go to your school. Under Canadian law, their relationships are legal, same-sex couples have the rights of different-sex couples, they can be legally married (and divorced) and they are protected from discrimination under the law. Policy 5.45 addresses the rights of LGBTQ+ students and staff to be protected from discrimination (including a hostile climate) under the law.

I also feel afraid for my gay friends, because I know that there are many people who see that their relationships are sinful and immoral, who believe that homosexuals are diseased and sick, and who say and sometimes do hateful things. I know that simple expressions of affection (holding hands, a romantic look, resting a tired head on a shoulder) can expose my friends to danger. I also know that attitudes in schools and families often made it even harder to go through the difficult process of learning about their sexual orientation and romantic feelings. Some families are accepting and loving; many families struggle with a child coming-out.

At the same time, I sympathize with parents who would just rather not think or talk about anything other than heterosexual relationships with their children. Parents may be uncomfortable talking about sex at all. Most of us grew up in a homophobic culture, and learned that there was something bad, shameful or ridiculous about being gay. Some attend a faith-community that tells them the bible (or other scripture) declares homosexuality to be sinful. Many associate same-sex attractions with promiscuity, same-sex pedophilic sexual predators and sexually transmitted infections (particularly AIDS). Many don't know any ordinary people who happen to be gay. Some parents fear that they could never accept a gay child, or that they would have to choose between their child and their faith community. These parents could use support to become more comfortable with the reality of diversity in sexual orientation, and to learn that it need not be seen as a threat.

To support our schools and our children, we need to be more compassionate to one another. The public school system will not teach children that all families are heterosexual or that heterosexuality is better than any other orientation. It will also not teach children that your skin colour, ethnicity or religion are better than everyone else’s.

Passing Policy 5.45 is only the beginning of what needs to happen. I suspect that it will help the schools and our children if we as parents also create opportunities to learn and discuss our own attitudes, and to get the information we need to partner with the schools in raising children who are respectful of this aspect of diversity in our communities. In response to the protests against Policy 5.45, I formed the Burnaby Parents Gay/Straight Alliance. I encourage parents and others to join us on Facebook. Families who are struggling to accept a gay child may also want to contact PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) for information and support.

I encourage those of us who support the Policy to be sensitive to the fears of those who oppose it, and to strive to be reassuring. Including a diversity of families in the curriculum will not mean sexually explicit instruction for 7-year-olds. Saying that some people share their life with a person of the same sex need not mean describing sexual practices, any more than talking about husband-and-wife families does. For those who oppose the Policy, I encourage you to also be compassionate towards those who have a different sexual orientation from you. If you don’t know any normal gay couples, ask around. Gay people don’t want to recruit your kids. They want their own lives to be better, they want to be accepted as people with rights, and they want to improve the lives of gay kids today. Many of them are motivated because they wished someone had been there for them in their youth. Remember that being uncomfortable is not the same as being unsafe.

Pronatalism is its own belief system

Lately I've been spending some of my spare time talking to fundamentalists about gay rights. I'm really struggling to understand, because I just don't get how a committed and respectful sexual relationship between two people can be a threat to society. And, given what I know of Christ and his life, I really don't understand how anyone could call this attitude towards gay people a Christian belief.

Over the last couple of weeks, with the help of a presentation from Larry Nelson about the stigma associated with early and unexpected infertility, I've realized that this set of beliefs is actually a belief system in its own right, and that it has a name: Pronatalism.

Here's how Wikipedia currently defines pronatalism (or, as they call it, natalism):

Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a belief that promotes human reproduction. The term is taken from the Latin adjective form for "birth", natalis. Natalism promotes child-bearing and glories parenthood. It typically advocates policies such as limiting access to abortion and contraception, as well as creating financial and social incentives for the population to reproduce.

I've always had trouble with the position of the Catholic Church (my faith of origin - I became a Quaker by convincement in my late 20's) on women's rights, as manifested by various pronatalist stances on contraception and abortion, as well as others.

What's also interesting is what wikipedia has to say about nativism, which brings in a lot of attitudes against immigration.

So, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. Stigma against homosexuality is part of a larger belief system that stigmatizes single women, couples who choose not to have children (the Childless by Choice community), and women who practice contraception or who choose to have abortions rather than carrying a child to term.
2. Pronatalist beliefs made historical sense in small communities who needed to maintain their identity and their population numbers in order to persist. Moreover, in a social evolutionary sense, this belief system was probably associated with group persistence, and so has become overrepresented.
3. Pronatalism makes little sense in a world with 8 billion people and counting, where overpopulation and resource overutilization and climate change are posing enormous risks and challenges to peace now and in the future.
4. Pronatalism is a strongly felt moral position. But it is not a Christian position (or a Moslem position, or a Jewish position). It is its own belief system.

Oddly enough, this is also helping me to feel a lot more comfortable calling myself a Christian.

Presentation to the Burnaby School Board on Policy 5.45

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic tonight.

Two weeks ago when I first learned of the protests against draft Policy 5.45, I created a Facebook group, and a Facebook page, both called the Burnaby Parents' Gay/Straight Alliance. In addition to writing directly to the board, I also encourage all parents who support this policy to use the Facebook page to show your support and be visible.

However, let me be clear that I do not speak for other parents who have joined the Facebook group. I speak for myself, as a parent of a child in a Burnaby school. I speak as a Canadian-born child of immigrants. I speak as a scientist. I am also a person of faith. And I support Policy 5.45.

As a scientist, one thing I can offer is help finding and understanding the evidence about homosexuality and bullying based on real or perceived sexual orientation. I have also spoken to a colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, who is an expert on adolescent sexual development, and she is willing to come to speak to parents and to answer questions.

The more I learn, the more I realize how long overdue this policy is. I am learning that the expression "that's so gay" is pervasive in Burnaby student culture. I am learning that many children are harassed bullied and teased on a daily basis. I am learning that a shocking number of these children take their own lives. I am also learning that many of the children who have taken their own lives were straight children who were singled out, targeted, labelled, and bullied to their deaths.

I have also been shocked to learn that Aaron Webster’s killers came from Burnaby. For those who may not have heard this story, ten years ago, four young men got in a car for some recreational gay-bashing. They drove to Stanley Park, found a gay man, and beat him to death with baseball bats. These young men were a product of Burnaby schools. Why was a policy not put in place then?

The rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people to be protected from discrimination and bullying is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted about thirty years ago.

Four years ago a judge found that school boards were required to pass policies of this type. With our history, and with a clear need for this type of protection for LGBTQ youth, what I honestly do not understand is why this policy is not already in place. I urge the Burnaby School Board to pass this policy, and then to follow the lead of the Vancouver School Board in putting resources in place to improve the school environment.

I would also like to speak to all of the parents who are here. While it may look like we are on opposite sides, I want to recognize that we are all here out of a deep commitment to doing the right thing for our children. And I would like to say that it is possible to be a committed person of faith and to raise your children to have values that are not taught in the classroom.

This can be uncomfortable and difficult. As parents we need to talk more among one another about the challenges of living in a country that respects and tolerates diversity, but that protects the human rights of everyone.

I myself am a Quaker, and my faith leads me to take a strong position of non-violence. The bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Jesus offered the most profound example of non-violence in giving his life without fighting, and chastising Peter for using violence in his defence. Nonetheless, I recognize that my daughter shares the classroom with children who do not share this view, and who may come from military families. I also know that she will be taught that warfare is an acceptable way for countries to resolve conflicts. As a Canadian, I need to be able to speak my truth, while allowing others to have their own, sometimes different, beliefs. And this is a challenge I share with many other families, be they Sikh, Moslem, vegetarians, and even atheists.

Last weekend I gathered with my faith community. I would like to close by reading a minute from that gathering in support of this policy:

Western Half-Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) encourages and supports the Burnaby Board of Education in its work of developing policy that makes schools inclusive and safe for all students. In particular, we strongly support the Burnaby Board’s current efforts to develop and implement policy 5.45, the goal of which is, in the Board’s words, “to ensure that all members of the school community learn to work together in an atmosphere of respect and safety free from homophobia, transphobia, anti-gay harassment and/or exclusion regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” We hold you in the Light as you work toward honouring and protecting the civil rights of all students.

Thank you.

Christine Hitchcock, Burnaby, BC
May 24, 2011.

Intersectionality I

Recently, I attended a workshop on "Intersectionality in Women's Health Research" at Simon Fraser University. It was terrifically stimulating for me, and part of that stimulation is a reframing of my entire way of being in the world.

In some ways, intersectionality is a fancy name for a simple concept. But it has important connotations and context that seem very powerful. And it seems important for me to figure out exactly what I mean by that, why it is so exciting and stimulating, and where I can go from here.

Intersectionality arose as a way of describing the experiences of black women activists, who found that their experiences and challenges were not being met within the women's movement, nor within black activist groups. They describe being dually penalized, and describe the ways in which both marginal (I use it in the statistical sense) movements (women, black) failed to include them and left them feeling that they had no political options that spoke to their needs. So, fundamentally, intersectionality has been a concept that allows people in multiply-marginalized roles to articulate their unmet needs, and to take political action to have those needs included in the wider discourse.

What was exciting for me?

• Complexity as a legitimate topic
• Transdisciplinarity embraced as a powerful research paradigm - a way across/outside of the research silo model of academic organization
• A model for transdisciplinary work that is built on mutual respect and a delight in the ways in which each contributor's expertise can inform the collective understanding
• Resonance with my mathematical modelling history, particularly an intriguing book I read while working for Carl Walters as an undergraduate student in 1985. The book was a set theoretical framework for understanding how natural systems work, and included some very interesting ideas about actors in a complex system, with ways to address features of each actor, and a relation (like a filter) that described how each actor was seen by other actors in the system. So, our observation process will recognize some (but not all) aspects of A and B, but A and B may see one another in entirely different ways. The theory was helpful to me in that it suggested ways in which apparent random processes might actually be driven by incomplete observation processes.
• Where I then went with this is to think about identity- self-identity, identity by others, feedback from others, feedback from groups, systemic recognition (and failure to recognize) identities, and the role of activism and policy work in retuning systemic understanding of individuals to redress implicit and explicit processes by which individuals are seen and categorized.
• Out of this has come some interesting ideas about integrity, the costs of not having integrity, and the ways in which living in a congruent environment facilitates integrity, while living in a fragmented environment makes it much harder.
  
• My math-geek self was also challenged by the fact that both of the introductory speakers (Rita Dhamoon, Ange-Marie Hancock) were struggling to find a representation to visualize what they were describing.

One opening that I believe this may represent is for those of us who find our expertise is excluded from acceptable discourse because we are positioned within biomedicine. Just as class may act through gender, and gender may act through class (Gita Sen, public evening lecture), both may act through physiological mechanisms. If you understand those mechanisms, you can ask more interesting questions, and ask them in ways that are enriching and helpful for policy.

I would like to write more fully on many of these topics, but this is a useful start.